Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between different aspects of alliance funding profiles (e.g. range of sources, dependence on specific sources) and participant’ perceptions of how well the organization is positioned for the future.

A mixed method study in the context of eight alliances participating in the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Aligning Forces for Quality program. Data collection approaches included surveys of alliance participants and semi-structured interviews with alliance leaders.

The findings indicate that dependence on grant revenues, in particular, may be problematic for how well alliances are positioned for sustainability. While a number of approaches were identified to reduce dependence on grants, implementing these strategies presented more of a challenge for alliances due to the contextual demands of their external environment and a need to strike a balance between pursuing alternative revenue sources and fidelity to the mission and identity of the organization.

Alliance leaders need to have not only a broad and accurate understanding of their external environment, but also an appreciation of the alliance’s identity in that environment. Collectively, the findings can help organizational leaders be more informed about their funding choices and the implications those choices have for the future of their organization.

Collaborative forms of organizations (e.g. alliances, coalitions, networks) are increasingly viewed as an effective means of addressing complex, multifaceted health, and social challenges. For collaborative organizations that depend on the coordinated efforts of volunteers, addressing such complex issues is predicated on sustaining programmatic activities as well as the interest and participation of stakeholders over extended periods of time. This study sheds light on how leaders of these organizations may improve their prospects for sustainability.

Multisector health care alliances (alliances) are increasingly viewed as playing an important role in improving the health and health care of local populations, in part by disseminating innovative practices, yet alliances face a number of challenges to disseminating these practices beyond a limited set of initial participants. The purpose of this paper is to examine how alliances attempt to disseminate innovative practices and the facilitating and inhibiting factors that alliances confront when trying to do so.

The authors adopted multiple holistic case study design of eight alliances with a maximum variation case selection strategy to reflect a range of structural and geographic characteristics. Semi-structured interviews with staff, leaders and board members were used.

The findings show that dissemination is a multidirectional process that is closely if not inextricably intertwined with capacity- and context-related factors (of the alliance, partnering organizations and target organizations). Thus, standardized approaches to dissemination are likely the exception and not the rule, and highlight the value of existing frameworks as a starting point for conceptualizing the important aspects of dissemination, but they are incomplete in their description of the “on-the-ground” dissemination processes that occur in the context of collaborative organizational forms such as alliances.

Despite a rapidly expanding evidence base to guide clinical and managerial decision making, this knowledge often fails to make its way into routine practice. Consequently, the search for effective strategies to reduce this gap has accelerated in the past decade. This study sheds light on those strategies and the challenges to implementing them.

The purpose of this study was to examine the organizational context that may support learning and change readiness climates that previous research has found to be conducive to implementing evidence-based interventions.

An exploratory, mixed method evaluation that included 15 rheumatology clinics throughout the United States was performed. Quantitative data were collected using a web-based survey completed by 135 clinic members. Qualitative data were collected via semi-structured interviews with 88 clinic members.

In general, clinics reported strong, positive learning and change readiness climates. More complex organizations (e.g. multispecialty, academic medical centers) with rational/hierarchical cultures and members with longer tenure were associated with less supportive learning and change readiness climates. The authors’ findings highlight opportunities for organizational leaders and evidence-based intervention sponsors to focus their attention and allocate resources to settings that may be most susceptible to implementation challenges.

First, the authors address a deficit in previous research by describing both the level and strength of the learning and change readiness climates for implementing an evidence-based shared decision-making aid (SDMA) and examine how these vary as a function of the organizational context. Second, the study examines a broader set of factors to assess the organizational context (e.g. organizational culture, organizational structure, ownership) than previous research, which may be especially salient for shaping the climate in smaller specialty clinics like those we study. Third, the authors utilize a mixed methods analysis to provide greater insights into questions of how and why organizational factors such as size and structure may influence the learning and change readiness climate.

The purpose of this study is to examine the prevalence of different workplace learning models in healthcare organizations and examine whether these learning styles and activities differ across hierarchical level.

Results of a survey of US healthcare executives and executive‐track employees were analyzed (n=492). The survey asked for information on workplace learning style, hierarchical position, and workplace learning opportunities.

Employees at all levels of the organization report learning in a variety of ways in the workplace, including through transmission, experience, communities of practice, competence, and activity. However, employees at lower hierarchical levels report fewer workplace learning opportunities than those at higher levels.

The study utilizes cross‐sectional data on healthcare executives who are relatively homogenous with regard to race and gender.

The results of the study are positive in that a variety of workplace learning opportunities are available to executives and executive‐track employees. However, placing more emphasis on the development of director and manager level employees would further enhance the talent pool for executive level leadership in US hospitals.

The study demonstrates differences in learning styles and opportunities for learning across hierarchical level.

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether healthcare leaders use evidence-based management (EBMgt) when facing major decisions and what types of evidence healthcare administrators consult during their decision-making. This study also intends to identify any relationship that might exist among adoption of EBMgt in healthcare management, attitudes towards EBMgt, demographic characteristics and organizational characteristics.

A cross-sectional study was conducted among US healthcare leaders. Spearman’s correlation and logistic regression were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 23.0.

One hundred and fifty-four healthcare leaders completed the survey. The study results indicated that 90 per cent of the participants self-reported having used an EBMgt approach for decision-making. Professional experiences (87 per cent), organizational data (84 per cent) and stakeholders’ values (63 per cent) were the top three types of evidence consulted daily and weekly for decision-making. Case study (75 per cent) and scientific research findings (75 per cent) were the top two types of evidence consulted monthly or less than once a month. An exploratory, stepwise logistic regression model correctly classified 75.3 per cent of all observations for a dichotomous “use of EBMgt” response variable using three independent variables: attitude towards EBMgt, number of employees in the organization and the job position. Spearman’s correlation indicated statistically significant relationships between healthcare leaders’ use of EBMgt and healthcare organization bed size (r_s = 0.217, n = 152, p < 0.01), attitude towards EBMgt (r_s = 0.517, n = 152, p < 0.01), and the number of organization employees (r_s = 0.195, n = 152, p = 0.016).

This study generated new research findings on the practice of EBMgt in US healthcare administration decision-making.